Judging An Academic Institution By How It Treats Its Elders

Judging An Academic Institution By How It Treats Its Elders

By

Leonard Zwelling

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/magazine/scott-pelley-interview.html?searchResultPosition=5

Three of Simone’s Maxims

Dating to the late Joe Simone’s article in Clinical Cancer Research in 1999

• Institutions don’t love you back.
• Leadership does matter.
• Contrary to the laws of physics in academic institutions, crap flows uphill.

In The New York Times on June 9, a lengthy interview with the recently fired “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley was published that was most revealing. In essence:

1. CBS had been purchased by David Ellison, son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and the hope was that his infusion of money and vision might be a good thing for CBS News.
2. Ellison appointed Bari Weiss to run CBS News. She had no experience in television journalism.
3. The on-air talent at “60 Minutes” felt Weiss was trying to influence the content of its reporting in favor of the Trump Administration’s positions on things like ICE activities in Minneapolis.
4. Weiss fired the management of “60 Minutes” and two on-air correspondents. She replaced that leadership with Nick Bilton who also had no TV experience.
5. Pelley spoke up against Bilton and Weiss at a staff meeting that went public and he was fired.
6. It was evident from the interview that Pelley felt that the new management had no respect for the history of the most successful news show in the annals of television, and had no idea what it was doing.

Recently it has come to my attention, that the current leadership of the MD Anderson Cancer Center has no respect for those who came before it and made the place the great institution it is. This is manifested by the lack of consultation with the current clinician and research experts on matters that affect these faculty and into which the current and past faculty have great insight. In addition, Pisters and company have not proposed the formation of a replacement for the Faculty Senate, and have been shameful in the manner in which they have treated some senior faculty. I believe that it is safe to say that the current leadership of the number one place for cancer care is arrogant and unwilling to learn from those who contributed to the place that is paying these leaders so well now.

By contrast, the Duke Medical School cultivates its relationship with its graduates, alumni, past faculty, and even the parents of current and past students. Dr. Kleinerman’s advice is sought often as a member of the Medical Alumni Council. I am now serving on the Duke Medical School Board of Visitors whose membership has a minority of Duke Med School grads, but contains interested parties from all walks of life who care about the future of the medical school and, like the Medical Alumni Council, advise Dean Mary Klotman.

I have really only worked at three academic institutions in my career since 1973—Duke, the National Cancer Institute, and MD Anderson.

Duke respects its elders, seeks their advice (and their financial contributions, for sure), and works hard to keep those senior citizens informed about the progress at the medical school and its challenges. As Scott Pelley described, the past staff of “60 Minutes,” Duke Medical School graduates and its various alumni councils are one extended family.

The current NCI is falling apart. Senior leaders cannot get out fast enough. Many have been fired anyway. Grant money is almost impossible to secure. A career in academic cancer research is becoming untenable. Why bother? Go to work in industry.

MD Anderson has always astonished me as being willing to turn its past faculty leaders’ pictures to the wall the moment those leaders retire or are relieved of duty. Anderson’s current and past leaders never even tried to cultivate past faculty as future donors, which makes no sense. Yet, these very people could be tremendous sources of wisdom and guidance (and donations) for the Anderson leaders of today. It was evident from my very first meeting with Peter Pisters and at the three dinners thereafter that these were really perfunctory meetings on his part. He really didn’t care about what I had to say about the history that preceded him or the errors made by his predecessors. I find his choices of vice presidents and Division Heads remarkable in how little an impression they leave. The more I meet them, the less impressed I am. I only hope Dr. Koong proves me wrong for my interactions with him suggest to me that he is a first-rate person now ensconced in a sea of lesser lights around the Pisters table.

A perfect current example of the foolishness of the Pisters crowd has been the “merger” of MD Anderson Pediatrics with the oncology service at Texas Children’s Hospital. This was promulgated by the $150 million Kinder gift to build a new children’s cancer center. But:

1. This is not merger. Texas Children’s is acquiring MD Anderson Pediatrics.
2. There is a marked difference in salaries, benefits, and the presence or absence of the SAP payment when the TCH staff is compared with the in-coming MD Anderson faculty. How can you have two groups of people doing the same work and being paid differently?
3. The cultures of the two services are also markedly different. Even the manner in which chemotherapy is administered differs—out-patient at Anderson; in-patient at TCH.
4. Finally, what the heck was the rush? That new hospital will not open for at least five years and there are many millions that still need to raised and leadership identified.

This was just handled terribly by all those involved in the attempted merger. My understanding is many adjustments have still to be made.

Joe Simone, who was my friend and a reader of this blog. He was one of the wisest men I ever knew, yet, perhaps, in the case of his first maxim about the relationship between institutions and their ex-faculty he may not have been fully correct. He was absolutely right about the need for good leadership and the upward oozing of mediocrity in academics. Today’s MD Anderson upper leaders are exhibit one. But some institutions do cultivate those who have left for a host of reasons but stay connected and devoted. Duke Medical School is one of those.

The current MD Anderson is not. The current MD Anderson is like Scott Pelley’s CBS News. It is run by amateurs with inadequate managerial and academic experience or credentials. The leaders of MD Anderson, especially the president, still do not grasp that the institution’s greatest assets are the MD Anderson name and its faculty. Both are being weakened by the leadership atop Anderson and, for that matter, by the UT System, the Texas Legislature, and the Board of Regents.

As I will curiously observe what happens at CBS News over the next six months, I will be watching how Anderson negotiates a future with a new children’s cancer hospital, a new adult hospital in Houston, a 25-story clinic tower (I hope I live long enough to see how parking and traffic are handled on the corner of Fannin and Holcombe), and a new identity in Austin.

Will MD Anderson be able to navigate through the need for billions in construction dollars at a time when NIH grant money cannot be found? Will research still be on the agenda at Anderson beyond industry-sponsored clinical trials? Is this the wisest course of action? Did anyone making these decisions ask the older faculty, retired and active?

I doubt it. Today’s leaders had a bottomless and inexpensive source of wisdom at their disposal. They ignored it. Too bad.